MEDICAL POT DOCTOR FACES HIS ACCUSERS; STATE'S WITNESS CALLS HIS CARE
INADEQUATE

A hearing began Wednesday over whether a Berkeley physician who has
approved the use of medicinal marijuana for 7,500 patients should have his
license revoked on the grounds that he failed to properly examine them.

The controversy pits Dr. Tod Mikuriya, 69, a well-known medical marijuana
advocate and psychiatrist who says he is protected under state law, against
the Medical Board of California, which insists that marijuana has nothing
to do with the case.

"The accusation in no way seeks to punish or otherwise sanction Dr.
Mikuriya for having recommended marijuana," according to a brief filed in
July by the state attorney general. "The fact that marijuana happened to be
the drug in question is quite irrelevant to the charges."

But Mikuriya's supporters say the state's case, filed in 2000, is
politically motivated and payback for his vocal support of medicinal
marijuana under Proposition 215. Approved by state voters in 1996, it
legalized growing and using marijuana for medical purposes, with a doctor's
recommendation.

"This is sore loser's syndrome," said Bill Simpich, an Oakland attorney
representing Mikuriya, who received his medical license in 1963 after
graduating from the Temple University School of Medicine.

The state alleges that Mikuriya engaged in unprofessional conduct and was
negligent in his handling of 16 cases since 1998. Mikuriya is one of about
a dozen California doctors who since Prop. 215 have been investigated by
the medical board in connection with medicinal marijuana recommendations to
patients.

Lawyers argued Mikuriya's case Wednesday before Administrative Law Judge
Jonathan Lew in Oakland.

A physician called by the state, Dr. Laura Duskin, testified that her
review of 17 files of Mikuriya's patients revealed some serious
deficiencies, including a lack of documentation of examinations, lab tests,
follow-up and treatment plans.

"It was very inadequate," Duskin said of Mikuriya's recommendation of
marijuana for a patient, identified only as R.A., who complained of stomach
pain.

"The medical marijuana may have helped the patient's symptoms, but it can
actually be very dangerous to recommend a palliative treatment -- to ease
the pain -- without treating the underlying problem," Duskin said under
questioning by Deputy Attorney General Jane Zack Simon.

At one point during Duskin's testimony, Susan Lea, a Stinson Beach attorney
representing Mikuriya, accused the state of smearing her client.

The hearing will last for several more days, during which Lew will hear
case-by-case testimony on Mikuriya's conduct before making a recommendation
to the medical board. A final decision as to whether Mikuriya should lose
his license rests with the board.

On July 31, Lew denied Mikuriya's motion to dismiss the state's case,
saying Mikuriya failed to prove that the state medical board violated his
First Amendment rights to recommend medicinal marijuana.

In his ruling, the judge distinguished between a doctor's recommendation to
use marijuana and the process by which the recommendation was reached.

The immunity given to doctors under Proposition 215 "appears to be
conditional" in that "it is presumed that physicians who recommend
marijuana under the act will follow accepted medical practice standards and
make good-faith recommendations based on honest medical judgments," the
judge wrote.

On Aug. 20, Mikuriya rejected the medical board's offer to settle the case.
Under the agreement, Mikuriya would have been placed on probation for four
years and would have had to take an ethics course, take a clinical training
program and reimburse the board $10,000 for investigation costs.